Madras High Court
V.Ramasamy vs The Tahsildar on 25 August, 2023
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
V.Ramasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Chengam Taluk,
Chengam – 606701
Tiruvannamalai District ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to measure the
land an extent of 0.25 cents situates at Ayanpunjai Survey No.61/2C1,
Kurumapatty Village, Ilankunni Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai
District and earmark the boundaries by considering the petitioner's
representation, dated 27.07.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mariappan
For Respondent : Mr.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondent to measure the land to an extent of 0.25 cents situated at
Ayanpunjai Survey No.61/2C1, Kurumapatty Village, Ilankunni Post,
Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District and earmark the boundaries by
considering the petitioner's representation, dated 27.07.2023.
2. The issues raised in the present writ petition were adjudicated by this
Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.37519 of 2016 [S.Sakkarai Vs.
The Tashildhar, Dharmapuri District] etc., and batch, and a judgment was
delivered on 19.06.2023 and the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
extracted hereunder:
“36. Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure unambiguously contemplates that “The
Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a
civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred”.
37. Therefore, a special enactment has no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
relevance with reference to a right of the parties to
approach the competent Civil Court of law to
resolve all nature of civil disputes including
boundary dispute, survey dispute, title dispute,
ownership or otherwise. Therefore, neither the
parties nor the authorities need to create an
impression that in the event of boundary dispute,
the parties have to approach the authorities at the
first instance. It is not required that the aggrieved
persons, in the event of boundary dispute has to
approach the authorities for fixing the boundary,
they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court of
law under Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which is unambiguous in this regard.
38. Submitting an application for fixing
boundary is an option available to the aggrieved
persons. Once an application is filed, whether the
application is entertainable under the provisions
of the Act is to be determined by the authorities
and only if it is falling within the ambit of the Act,
then alone the survey or fixing of boundary is to
be undertaken. Even in this case, the authorities
are bound to relegate the parties to the competent
Civil Court of law under Section 14 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
39. It is contended by the petitioner that the
authorities are making certain findings regarding
the title, ownership in their order, while rejecting
the applications. Such findings made by the
authorities either in the patta proceedings or in
the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries
Act are restricted and to be understood only for
the purpose of arriving a conclusion under the
provisions of the Act and the said patta
proceedings or the proceedings under the Survey
and Boundaries Act would not confer any title or
be taken as a conclusive decision, more
specifically under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
40. Accordingly, the respondents are
directed to consider the representations /
applications submitted by the petitioners in the
order of seniority and by following the procedures
as contemplated under the Governmental orders
and in consonance with the provisions of the
Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance
with law. Wherever the applications are already
disposed of and appeals provided under the Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
has been filed, then such appeals are to be
decided on merits and in consonance with the
provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act.”
3. In view of the fact that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that
of the cases (cited supra), the case of the petitioner is also to be considered on
the same line. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
25.08.2023
nl/mkn-ii
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Chengam Taluk,
Chengam – 606701
Tiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nl/mkn-ii
W.P.No.25063 of 2023
25.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
